Cindy Sheehan

[MONOLITH]

I cant see how american lives are worth iraqi freedom...

Honestly, I almost wish the current US government would just stop all the transparent facades, and come out and say ....

"We have to insert Pro-US governments (puppets?) into the middle east in order to gain control over the region, and prevent the radical countries from getting the upper hand in the future."

Now, certainly Expansionism, Imperialism, and even Hegemonia are quite distasteful and unaccepted in the 21st Century, and only the US could even attempt to get away with it;

And the left will obviously reply with "but this is the very reason that radical muslims are attacking us"...to which I disagree because 9/11, and the USS Cole, and the Iranian hostage crisis 20 years ago, etc, all happened well before we invaded the middle east;

And as a Roman, how can I not support getting the barbarians under control, for the sake of my children's children?


Oops.....

*stay out of it*
*stay out of it*
*stay out of it*

PS: I sort of like the Rome comparison at the moment, because I do believe this empire will one day fall as well. If not to some outside pressure like the quietly strengthening China, or a reborn Soviet Union under strong patriots like Putin, we will succumb to our own inner decay that we allow to grow like cancer in every city, turning a blind eye to serious internal mistakes while we seek to conquer foriegn lands. This is exactly what happened to Rome.

And those with a liberal ideology may say "but it doesn't have to be this way. We dream of global peace, one unified race, and together we can make it happen". *cue Kum By Ya music*

To that I say, I hope you are right. I really do.

But tell me; When, in the entire history of mankind, has there been even a glimmer of such a time.

Like African Army Ants, the human race marches along, warring on each other and destroying the terrain as we go. It has always been this way, from Attila the Hun, to Ghengis Khan, to Adolph Hiltler, to George Bushicus (who I voted for and still support the republican ideology).

The fact that technical achievements now allow me to download digital data at 5 Mps, instead of writing on a leaf and sending it by pigeon, has done little to 'civilize' men over the centuries. It's only given us faster and better ways to destroy each other.

As smart and educated as we become, as advanced as we make our tools and weapons and medicines, we're still the savages we were in the stone age. It's the very reason you still think about raping the neighbors daughter or murdering your boss. It's the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait. It's the reason for genocide in Africa and Bosnia. It's the reason for white sexual slavery. It's the reason for every form of human against human abuse you will see in tomorrows newspaper. And the next day. And the next.

Think I'm wrong.......turn on Jerry Springer.

{gangster voice}"Where's your messiah now, see? ...."{/gangstervoice}

Happy Monday.  


And now back to our regularly scheduled Cindy Sheehan discussion....

[SODsniper]

Monolith, yer my new hero!  


Lucky you, eh??  



SODsniper

[MONOLITH]

Yeah, I know.

I get that all the time.


But stop dissing Zazoo or I'll have to disown you.

[Lazerblade]

I don't know how many of you are up to the challenge, but pick up Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" sometime. It's over 1000 pages of struggle between man and society. Pretty good read, I just finished it yesterday and it brongs about a whole new outlook on government and economy. And after all, isn't that what Dubya's all about? If you read the book, you'll understand why I used that phrase.

[Zazoo]

I don't know how many of you are up to the challenge, but pick up Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" sometime. It's over 1000 pages of struggle between man and society. Pretty good read, I just finished it yesterday and it brongs about a whole new outlook on government and economy. And after all, isn't that what Dubya's all about? If you read the book, you'll understand why I used that phrase.

Great book (long book   ). I don't totally agree with her objectivist philosophy, but it was still a great book.

~Mike

[Zazoo]

And the left will obviously reply with "but this is the very reason that radical muslims are attacking us"...to which I disagree because 9/11, and the USS Cole, and the Iranian hostage crisis 20 years ago, etc, all happened well before we invaded the middle east;

Check out the history of the Shah and US support of his regime prior to the Iranian revolution. The Iranian hatred for the us is not at all without a US cause.

I’m not trying to make excuses for the Middle East or terrorism or hostage taking or any of that. The Middle East has had many of it's own problems and conflicts since long before the US existed. And it continues to be a hot-bed of conflict. But the US (and other western nations) has EARNED it's reputation in that region by screwing the Middle East and it’s people for many decades. As long as we could gain from it (oil, a military presence, etc), we had no problems supporting dictatorships (financially and militarily) and turning blind eyes to genocide and oppression. It isn't like the people of the Middle East just decided to start hating us one day.

~Mike

[MONOLITH]

*Mikes last Post*

I don't disagree at all. And I have full faith in your own historical knowledge.

It just lends to my theme about mankind in general; we all give and take based on what serves our purposes at a given moment (aiding dictatorships), and that can change in an instant (removing same dictatorship). Everyone does it, even the good guys.

And even if the US is entirely at fault for 'stirring the hornets nest' of radical muslims, it doesn't change the current needs to now go in and get things under control. Preferably our control, IMO.

[SODsniper]

Getting back to the central theme of Sheehan...

It is simply NOT possible to claim to support the troops fighting a war, but not support the war effort itself.

Supporting the troops = supporting the cause they are fighting and dying for.

Libercrats are trying to have it both ways because they know that NOT supporting the troops is their death knell...

But it is simply moronic to try and claim one supports a group, but that they do NOT support what that group is fighting for.

And, least we forget.  President Bush *IS* the Commander In Chief...  How is it possible that one can claim, "Oh, well I support  THIS   troop, but I don't support THAT troop..."  It's moronic.  Either you support the troops in their entirety or you do not.  Either you support the troops in their cause or you do not.

It is this type of double-speak tripe that has caused the peaceniks to lose credibility in the eyes of the American Public.


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

Check out the history of the Shah and US support of his regime prior to the Iranian revolution. The Iranian hatred for the us is not at all without a US cause.

I’m not trying to make excuses for the Middle East or terrorism or hostage taking or any of that. The Middle East has had many of it's own problems and conflicts since long before the US existed. And it continues to be a hot-bed of conflict. But the US (and other western nations) has EARNED it's reputation in that region by screwing the Middle East and it’s people for many decades. As long as we could gain from it (oil, a military presence, etc), we had no problems supporting dictatorships (financially and militarily) and turning blind eyes to genocide and oppression. It isn't like the people of the Middle East just decided to start hating us one day.

~Mike

You are absolutely correct.  The entire Mid East did not simply start hating us one day..

However, to hear the Michael Moores or the John Kerrys or the Ted Kennedys tell the tale, Bush is directly responsible for all the hate directed towards the US today.   I recall an article a few weeks back where former President Carter said that the Arabs hate the US because of Gitmo...  "Hello... McFly...."   Arabs hated the US long before Gitmo even existed...

Terrorists hate.  Pure and simple.  No rhyme, no reason.  That is their defining quality.  If you take away THIS thing that they hate, they will just find something else to hate.

To try and claim that the US's actions has caused the hate is the ultimate in hypocracy...  

I'll tell you something.  And I speak of this from a certain amount of personal experience...   Appeasement and capitulation does not work.  Pretending that the VICTIM of terrorism has SOME responsible in the terrorist act only invites more terrorism.

And, getting back to Sheehan, her and her puppet master's actions will only embolden more attacks on Americans.


SODsniper

[DaSmerg]

IMHO, it's way, way, way past the point of should we have or shouldn't we have.  That debate is over.  There is a job to do in Iraq (and another place called Afghanistan) and it has to be done right.

The alternative?  More of the same for the Middle East, not the doom and gloom being spun.  

This administration has shown on several occasions and over several years now that it is not capable of getting this job done.

First it was a failure to build a large international consensus to get the job done without having to cowtow to afterwards demands in order for support, next it was the massive miscalculation on the now infamous WMD's, next was the miscalculation on the level and kind of insurgency, next is the failure to restore basic services to pre-war levels, next it was not having the proper equipment for the troops in to do the policing duties safely after the actual "war" part was over, next it was failing to properly elaborate and explain what exactly is the overall plan, I could go on.

It's not a matter of supporting the troops, it's having faith in the politicians who started this whole monster in motion to have the brains to see as many angles as possible and to make corrections when mistakes are made.  Part of that process is actually admitting that a mistake has been made.

Myself, I simply lack any more faith that anyone in the Bush administration has any clue what to do about the present and future of Iraq other than go out, say September 11th a bunch of times and scare the shit out of average joe blow telling him that if somebody tells them what the long term stradegy for Iraq and the Middle East actually is, there will be nasty rag heads blowing up the local Dairy Queen in the name of Allah.

[Zazoo]

It is simply NOT possible to claim to support the troops fighting a war, but not support the war effort itself.

Supporting the troops = supporting the cause they are fighting and dying for.

Libercrats are trying to have it both ways because they know that NOT supporting the troops is their death knell...

But it is simply moronic to try and claim one supports a group, but that they do NOT support what that group is fighting for.

As someone who "supports the troops but not the war" I'll weigh in.

We support our troops, because they realize that soldiers go where they are told and fight when they are told and have no say in the matter.
We want them to survive. We want them to come home safely. We want them to succeed in making Iraq secure and democratic because it makes the deaths of all those soldiers MEAN something -- they won't have died in vain.

What we don't support is the fact that they were sent over there to eliminate an imminent threat that didn't actually exist (WMD's and Al-Qaeda ties). We are left questioning whether the overthrow of a dictator and the freedom of the Iraqi people was really worth what we have paid for it (in blood, credibility, and money). We question whether it is even possible to consider them "free" until some stability exists in that region. We realize we are in a mess WE created and WE have an obligation to stay and FIX it. A mess we never had to be in because no imminent threat existed. We wonder how this effects our ability to deal with real threats like North Korea and Iran.

That is what is meant by the statement, "I support the troops but not the war".

~Mike

[Zazoo]

You are absolutely correct.  The entire Mid East did not simply start hating us one day..

However, to hear the Michael Moores or the John Kerrys or the Ted Kennedys tell the tale, Bush is directly responsible for all the hate directed towards the US today.   I recall an article a few weeks back where former President Carter said that the Arabs hate the US because of Gitmo...  "Hello... McFly...."   Arabs hated the US long before Gitmo even existed...

Terrorists hate.  Pure and simple.  No rhyme, no reason.  That is their defining quality.  If you take away THIS thing that they hate, they will just find something else to hate.

To try and claim that the US's actions has caused the hate is the ultimate in hypocracy...  

I'll tell you something.  And I speak of this from a certain amount of personal experience...   Appeasement and capitulation does not work.  Pretending that the VICTIM of terrorism has SOME responsible in the terrorist act only invites more terrorism.

And, getting back to Sheehan, her and her puppet master's actions will only embolden more attacks on Americans.


SODsniper

No the victims aren't responsible for the terrorist act. But not liking us and trying to kill us are two different things. I only said that the reasons they (a lot of Arabs, not just terrorists) don't like us are justified in some cases. I never said this justifies their decision to commit terrorist acts.

People will hate us no matter what, and there is nothing that can be done to change the mind of a terrorist fueled by religious fundamentalism. But not every Arab is a terrorist and/or religious zealot. We'd have a lot easier time fighting this war on terror if your average Arab didn't think that, given the choice between the US and a terrorist,  the terrorist was the lesser of two evils. It is a lot easier for your average Arab to get behind and support a terrorist if he thinks that terrorist is fighting a real evil. Like they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- even when he's a nut.
Our reputation among Arabs is shit and not all of that is a result of propaganda from the regimes they live under. Unfortunately we earned some of it.

And I never said anything about appeasment or capitulation. I think going into Afghanistan was totally justified. A global war on terror is a good thing -- if it is done right (e.g. by actually fighting terrorism).
~Mike

[SODsniper]

It looks like the American Public is turning against Ms Sheehan...

Huffington Site

Last week at this time, the majority of the posts were supporting Sheehan.  This week..... Well, you can read for yourself.



SODsniper

[Dr.Jeckyl]

7 or so negative comments on a blog is hardly the American public.

You know, i have YET to hear one single answer to her question she wants to ask King George. Can you answer it SOD? If you have forgotten it or it has been so muttled by the right trying to smear her, here it is;
For what noble cause did her son die?

[SODsniper]

Like Jane Fonda sitting in a North Vietnamese Anti-Aircraft gun that was there to kill Americans, I wonder how long it will be until we see Cindy Sheehan sitting down at a workbench with Zarqawi and assisting in the construction of an IED.


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

7 or so negative comments on a blog is hardly the American public.

You know, i have YET to hear one single answer to her question she wants to ask King George. Can you answer it SOD? If you have forgotten it or it has been so muttled by the right trying to smear her, here it is;
For what noble cause did her son die?

You do not believe that the fight for freedom is a "noble cause"??

This question has been asked and answered so many times.  But I understand how the liberals could have missed it, what with their insane antics and all.

As I stated before, freedom is not free.  Nor is it cheap.

Casey Sheehan did what he did of his own free will.  He was not drafted, not co-erced, not sold into slavery.  He was a volunteer soldier doing what he thought was best.  Cindy Sheehan is only out there for one thing.  To serve Cindy Sheehan.  She has so enjoyed the limelight, that she has taken to making pathetic and outrageous statements, just to stay in the limelight.


SODsniper

[SODsniper]

Interesting article
     Mom has the right to protest but not exploit son's memory



SODsniper

[SODsniper]

More interesting facts from the Sheehan saga.

Sheehan goes on and on about how President Bush won't meet with her and why won't President Bush meet with her.

Yet, on MSNBC's Countdown, Sheehan empahtically stated that she hopes Bush DOESN'T meet with her, so she can keep her momentum..

WTF!!!?

She whines and crys and drags her son's memory thru the mud so she can meet with the President and then states she really hopes she DOESN'T meet with the president???

How much more proof does the country need that Sheehan is nothing but an oppurtunistic whack-job???


SODsniper

[Zazoo]

You do not believe that the fight for freedom is a "noble cause"??

Fighting for freedom is a noble cause, but it isn't the reason we went into Iraq. We were given two VERY clear reasons why we went into Iraqi -- WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda. These were the reasons the war was "sold" with. The freedom of the Iraqi people was described as CONSEQUENCE of our actions, not the MOTIVATION for them.

Is the freedom of the Iraqi people worth what we have paid (and continue to pay) for it?

I don't think so. And with each soldiers more and more Americans are finding it hard to say yes. Even the ones who ignored the fact that there were no WMD's and no ties to Al-Qaeda.

This question has been asked and answered so many times.  But I understand how the liberals could have missed it, what with their insane antics and all.

 :roll:

As I stated before, freedom is not free.  Nor is it cheap.

So why are we footing the bill (and such a large bill it is) for Iraq's freedom?

Casey Sheehan did what he did of his own free will.  He was not drafted, not co-erced, not sold into slavery.  He was a volunteer soldier doing what he thought was best.

When soldiers volunteer to serve their country they give up their freedom of "choice". It's a big sacrifice to say to your country, "I'm yours, use me as you see fit" and it shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone, least of all our government.
Our goverment OWES it to our soldiers not to put them into harms way unecessarily.

~Mike

[SODsniper]

Fighting for freedom is a noble cause, but it isn't the reason we went into Iraq. We were given two VERY clear reasons why we went into Iraqi -- WMD's and ties to Al-Qaeda. These were the reasons the war was "sold" with. The freedom of the Iraqi people was described as CONSEQUENCE of our actions, not the motivation FOR them.

So, you would agree that fighting for freedom *IS* a noble cause??

Is the freedom of the Iraqi people worth what we have paid (and continue to pay) for it?

I don't think so. And with each soldiers more and more Americans are finding it hard to say yes. Even the ones who ignored the fact that there were no WMD's.

Hind site is always 20-20....

The simple fact is that we are there so the people of Iraq can live free out from under the heel of a ruthless psychotic dictator.  THAT is the fact and no amount of selfish compassionless diatribe from the anti-Bush crowd can change that one simple fact.

And, since we are all agreed that fighting for freedom *IS* a noble cause, then the Sheehan's question is hereby answered.



 :roll:

So why are we footing the bill (and such a large bill it is) for Iraq's freedom?

So, now your complaint is money??

Or, assuming you mean the cost in lives...  Well, the US is the world's policeman, like it or not.  Another one of those pesky little facts that always crop up.  Ergo, we have a moral obligation to stand up to the Saddams of the world.

Or it could be that most of the other countries in the world (AND the UN) was making so much money off of the Iraq situation, that the US had to go it alone.

Strange how the Anti-Bush nuts always seem forget all the bad things done by the REAL bad guys, in their blind hatred of their own country.

When soldiers volunteer to serve their country they give up their freedom of "choice". It's a big sacrifice to say to your country, "I'm yours, use me as you see fit" and it shouldn't be taken lightly by anyone, least of all our government.
Our goverment OWES it to our soldiers not to put them into harms way unecessarily.

~Mike

Right... And, our government was FREELY elected by the people to make those kinds of decisions for us.  OUR government (yours, mine, every Americans) made the decision.  Now it is YOUR job, as a patriotic American, to support the troops, not turn your back on them.  

The enemy here is not the President.  It is the insurgents and terrorists that operate every day in Iraq and elsewhere.  Insurgents and terrorists that are EMBOLDENED by the anti-Bush nuts.

Why is it that the Anti-Bush nuts are so hell bent on demonizing Bush, but yet say NOTHING about the cowardly terroristic acts of the REAL enemy??  

Where is the anti-Bush crowd's vehemence for the Saddams of the world?? Or the Arafats for the world?? Or the Bin Ladens of the world?  Or the Zarqawis of the world??  The Anti-Bush crowd loves to demonize Bush.  Yet they are strangly quiet regarding all the REAL bad guys in the world..  

Why is that???

And why we are asking questions, why isn't Clinton meeting with all the families of the people killed on 9/11 since it was his foolish actions and in-actions that led to 9/11?

I mean, if you want some questions answered, why not go with some REAL questions that get to the heart of the matters at hand.

What it all boils down to is that Sheehan does not care one single iota about the troops or anyone else.  Her only agenda is keeping herself in the limelight and embarrassing the President.  The evidence that proves this is overwhelming.



SODsniper